First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Should Japan pay the Ransom?
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/22/15

Scooty-Bby wrote:

I believe the ransoms should always be paid. I hate the american motto of 'dont negotiate with terrorists'
They are basically saying that the money is worth more than the people. Human life should always come first, who cares about a bit of money?


It's not a matter of adhering to a policy to refuse to negotiate with terrorists, it's acknowledgement of the very harsh reality that these people aren't looking for $200 million to buy a condominium on some tropical island and live comfortably for the rest of their lives. They're looking for funding to expand the operations, territory, and force projection of a terrorist organization. That's why you don't give money to terrorists, because they will turn around and use it to kill even more people than would've died had you told them to sod off.
8345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 1/22/15 , edited 1/22/15

BlueOni wrote:


Scooty-Bby wrote:

I believe the ransoms should always be paid. I hate the american motto of 'dont negotiate with terrorists'
They are basically saying that the money is worth more than the people. Human life should always come first, who cares about a bit of money?


It's not a matter of adhering to a policy to refuse to negotiate with terrorists, it's acknowledgement of the very harsh reality that these people aren't looking for $200 million to buy a condominium on some tropical island and live comfortably for the rest of their lives. They're looking for funding to expand the operations, territory, and force projection of a terrorist organization. That's why you don't give money to terrorists, because they will turn around and use it to kill even more people than would've died had you told them to sod off.


Agreed. However ransoms dont get paid even if its NOT a terrorist organisation. If one random criminal abducted someone to get some money, the governments of the world STILL would have the policy of not paying them, which will inevitably lead to a death that could have been avoided...
30791 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fraxinus
Offline
Posted 1/22/15

Scooty-Bby wrote:

I believe the ransoms should always be paid. I hate the american motto of 'dont negotiate with terrorists'
They are basically saying that the money is worth more than the people. Human life should always come first, who cares about a bit of money?


This seems like a very naïve view. It's not about the money. It's saying that people shouldn't be allowed to get what they want through threats. And who says money is the only thing a terrorist would want? Imagine what would happen if terrorists everywhere knew they could get anything if they threatened someone's life. Following a logical train of thought, more terrorists would hold people hostage and would probably demand for even more, because they know they can. It's nice being idealistic, but life, and its difficult issues like this, are not that simple.
Posted 1/22/15 , edited 1/22/15

Scooty-Bby wrote:

I believe the ransoms should always be paid. I hate the american motto of 'dont negotiate with terrorists'
They are basically saying that the money is worth more than the people. Human life should always come first, who cares about a bit of money?


As another poster pointed out, 200 million would fund things to kill a lot more people than 2. It also sets the stage for allowing other people to see "an easy way to get money" and start joining the business of hostage taking where a resolution of throwing money may not always happen (leading to those deaths) [talking about hostage taking in general, not specifically for THAT group].


A life, to me, is priceless, but comparing an infinite worth thing (a life) to several infinite worth things (many more lives) is something to consider. It isn't like they could just "print infinite money" for all hostages taken from now until eternity. It would cause severe inflation if that were to happen, the livelihood of many more people would be hurt and I would say even that would kill people.

Anyways, I don't want to talk further about the details on this. I didn't mean my post to be a "gotcha" kind of thing. It is just irresponsible on so many levels to reward evil doers (yes, reward).
39464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 1/22/15
Folks above have already given all the reasons that my answer is "no".
Vatta 
13558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Ireland
Offline
Posted 1/22/15

Scooty-Bby wrote:

I believe the ransoms should always be paid. I hate the american motto of 'dont negotiate with terrorists'
They are basically saying that the money is worth more than the people. Human life should always come first, who cares about a bit of money?


I'll be blunt, I disagree. That much money will give them funds for arms, toxic chemicals, etc. Because of that money, a lot more than two people will die.
Posted 1/22/15
It's not about money but about many other lives...until it is you or someone dear to you.

This is why I can't believe when America say "we don't negotiate with terrorists" but they forgot that they swapped terrorists for someone they think is important, in this case, a Sargent from the Army. Journalists and regular people are not important so why paying? but just wait when ISIS get their hands on another Sargent and they will be running around like mad hypocrites. Either do it for all or for no one, when there are exceptions you lose all respect. (swapping and paying money is the same thing because both encourage for more kidnappings).

But this is Japan, I don't think they are going to pay but I also don't think they are going to stay with crossed arms. I hope they do something...someone must do something against them and I have no hopes for America to be the one

What I would do: Pay for them. Every life matters. They will get the money and resources they need in other ways, asking for ransoms is just the easiest route for them so I don't think that not paying will make them weak and disappear one day...that's just my unpopular opinion.



TomCraft wrote:

They are two fucking random people. You really think japan really give a shit? They are not going to pay the ransom. Why the fuck is ISIL still alive?Nuke them or something. Let the people suffering end and just kill everyone bad in that fucking country already. Do we as human really give a single fuck? I mean we would maybe remember this at least for 4 hours then forget about those two people. We are only capable of showing empathy for a few hours until we stop caring.

Have the war against ISIL already start or are we playing the chicken game?


Yeah, I wonder the same thing...is there a war against ISIS yet or is the whole world just letting them do what they want and paying money whenever they want?

16843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / L'Étoile du Nord,...
Offline
Posted 1/22/15
I was going to say that this sounds like a job for the SFGp, but apparently they're domestic. I have a feeling the 1st Airborne Brigade is domestic, too.....hard to tell because despite Japan's armed forces trying to get involved in international affairs, they're still heavily domestic.

Anyway, regarding the situation with ISIS, Japan should do the right thing and refuse to pay the ransom. Japan should adopt an attitude of "We don't negotiate with terrorists." But, honestly, all I can do is say sh!t, because hostage situations are way more complicated than they sound....plus Japan's armed forces aren't completely as versatile as the best of the West.

Personally, though.....I remember now that I shared a meme'ed image, which I think was based on the image shown in the article. I feel ashamed; I should delete that.
1606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Bullhead City, AZ
Offline
Posted 1/22/15

Scooty-Bby wrote:

I believe the ransoms should always be paid. I hate the american motto of 'dont negotiate with terrorists'
They are basically saying that the money is worth more than the people. Human life should always come first, who cares about a bit of money?


The U.S. believe in not paying the ransom for things like this because all it does is say, "Hey, we're gonna pay out if you kidnap our people, so everybody come kidnap someone!".

No, we'll just send in the Navy Seals.
15011 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/22/15
Acquiescing to terrorist demands sets a bad precedence that would make these kinds of things more common. If nobody has ever paid a ransom for a kidnapping the idea of kidnapping for ransom would not exist. I seem to recall the reason they are seeking 200 million is because Japan had contributed ~200 million in the fight against ISIS. It would be an interesting twist if Japan threatens to contribute 400 million if the prisoners aren't let go.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/22/15
Nearly everyone has it right.You pay 200million to get 2 journalist back who are aware of the dangers they face and you create a bigger monster. If they can kill and take hostages without 200million, what do you think they will do with 200 million. Hate that people are bargaining chips and feel sorry for the hostages, but negotiating with terrorist amplifies the problem.
8989 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Buttermilk
Offline
Posted 1/22/15

Scooty-Bby wrote:

I believe the ransoms should always be paid. I hate the american motto of 'dont negotiate with terrorists'
They are basically saying that the money is worth more than the people. Human life should always come first, who cares about a bit of money?


Like Red Harlow's Famous quote goes "It ain't always about the money". In this case it's about not supplying your enemy with the means to do more damage to you or others in general.
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 1/22/15
Absolutely Not

The majority of the people so far have the right of it.
If ISIS gets ransom money, japan paints a big red target on every one of its citizens, saying look at me!! Kidnap me!! We pay money!!!
And then they'll massacre the poor guys anyway once they get it.
They took somebody ransom, obviously they're willing to harm people, trying to placate them will not work they'll just do the same thing again, and again, until somebody stops them.
These people don't want money, they want to spit in Japan's face, call them cowards and test their dedication to peace.
They're calling out to the west begging to be killed.
They aren't going to get 200 million dollars other ways, that's a HUGE sum of money, and we shouldn't pay them a cent anyways, they're diametrically opposed to every peaceful person on earth. They're killing anybody who doesn't actively help them.

And then think about what would happen if they got the money. How many guns could that buy? How many bombs? How much advertising? How many innocent lives are you willing to sacrifice to get those two people out? Yes, it's horrible that they're in jeopardy, but you know what could save them with 100% certainty? The people holding them for ransom not killing them. This isn't Japan's fault. This isn't those two citizen's fault. This is the fault of people who are willing to slaughter innocent people for no reason other than that they can.

Bah, if there's one thing I hate above all else it's hate.
37527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 1/22/15
Japan should absolutely not pay the ransom. First, don't negotiate with terrorists. Secondly, like others have said, that $200 million would help fund ISIS, and that is a lot of money, and it would help them hire and employ many others, they would pay well, so that would entice many to join ISIS, and they would have a lot of money to buy more weapons and equipment. Like people have said, it'd end up leading to the murder, death, and destruction of many more than just two people. It is terrible for these two Japanese people, but it is just two people...don't fork over $200 million to such evil terrorists just for the sake of two people...
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/22/15

kirika202 wrote:

Yeah, I wonder the same thing...is there a war against ISIS yet or is the whole world just letting them do what they want and paying money whenever they want?


The United States is currently supplying and training rebel factions in Syria opposing both ISIL and Assad who have allegedly been thoroughly vetted and which are considered to be moderates with equipment, arms, training, and so on. Meanwhile, air strikes are being conducted against ISIL in both Syria and Iraq by US forces and some partners who have agreed to operate alongside them. President Obama has been insistent that there will be no US boots on the ground and that the strategic objective is to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL (though what that means specifically is pretty malleable).
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.